Everything you'll need to know about the Left in the UK and beyond – and it's all in a bite-sized blog.
Full of pictures, anecdotes and jokes.
All the Diversity and Community Cohesion you'll ever need; and it's eco-friendly too.
Love and jihad to all my brothers!
Peace out and whatever. - Paul Austin Murphy

Thursday, 13 February 2014

Ed Miliband's Speech on Immigration

First posted: 14th December, 2012

Ed's dad,
Ralph, didn't have much faith in Parliament - in terms of socialism. In
terms of Islamisation, Shahid Malik has a lot of faith in Parliament.
But that's Muslim demographics for you. Socialists never got around to
breeding enough socialist kids.

Ed Miliband systematically failed to
mention the legions of immigrants, mainly Muslims, who are on benefits. There
is huge recent-immigrant unemployment alongside whole ghettos of immigrants
(mainly Muslim). Talk about 'our need for foreign labour' is simply not
relevant when talking about these people. (They are also mainly unskilled and
unqualified.)

Does Ed Miliband believe in the United
Kingdom's long and continuous traditions? Doesn't he believe that such
traditions depend on cultural and political homogeneity? And is it wrong to
think in terms of the totality of a nation - of the United Kingdom?

I would say that you certainly don’t even
have a nation in the first place if that geographical place doesn’t have at
least some long and continuous traditions. Without them, there is no
unification throughout the geographical unit and thus no real nation. We may
not agree with, or accept, all or certain of these traditions which we inherit,
but there still remains the need for traditions of some kind or other.

Without such traditions we would have
political and social heterogeneity rather than homogeneity. Let's not mince our
words here. We may indeed have conflict and possibly even civil war without
such traditions. We may have the balkanisation of the British Isles, or even,
possibly, Islamisation through more and more sharia law and the concomitant
demographic rise of Islamic ghettos (or 'enclaves' as the French call them).

In addition, in order to stop such
disintegration or balkanisation it’s also necessary for the government/state,
as well as its citizens, to be able to conceive of the totality of a nation.
This isn't a demand for total conformity. It’s more a desire that a country's
inhabitants at least share some fundamentals of various kinds (whether a belief
in parliamentary democracy, free speech, a national health service, the Sun or
Mirror newspaper, even bacon or whatever).

Complete social and political heterogeneity
can, or could, lead to “rivers of blood” because it has done many times in the
past and also in very many other countries! Whether or not it did in Enoch Powell's
day is another matter. I would say that, on the whole, it didn't. Then again,
in some respects it did!

Ed Miliband tells us that a change in the
constitution of the population has occurred. What follows is the interesting
bit. He argues, implicitly, that it is Labour’s business to manage that change,
not to prevent it, nor to reserve it.

There are strong arguments to the effect
that once immigrants are here there is little that can be done - at least on
the mass scale. But isn’t Miliband also saying that the Labour Party should not
prevent it today or in the future? And he certainly doesn’t believe in any
policy of reversal. But who says that mass immigration can’t be prevented? Many
want mass immigration to be stopped. Many others think it can be stopped.
Surely, of all people, Labour politicians should never happily say that some
terrible situation is beyond our, or their, ken. No politicians should ever say
that with ease.

It simply doesn’t follow that because we
have mass immigration now, and have indeed had it in the past, that it must be
the case that we simply accept it both today and in the future. Of course there
are political and economic arguments which state that mass immigration is
necessary in modern economies, etc. These positions can be argued against too.
Not to do so would be equivalent to Francis Fukuyamo’s idea that the way things
are in the West today is the way things *will always be from this day onward*.
(He was referring to ‘liberal capitalism’.)

Labourites and Conservatives argue that
opposing mass immigrations is equivalent to banging your head against a brick
wall. What incredible arrogance and defeatism! What an abrogation of the very
nature of politics! This appears to be a claim that mass immigration (plus
perhaps other political, social and economic realities) is a logical necessity
in modern economies; not a contingent fact!

What sort of immigrants is Miliband talking
about anyway? Muslim fundamentalists/Islamists or Indians who want to join the
British Army or work in a UK charitable organisation? Is he also talking about
the immigrants who claim benefits in our country or those who work the NHS?
Immigrants who want to bomb us, or live off the dole; or immigrants with skills
or expertise the UK requires? He doesn’t make these distinctions at all. You
cannot be for immigrants - certainly not mass immigration - unless you make
such distinctions. If you don’t, you are nothing more than a mass-immigration
fundamentalist, as many leftists and left-liberals are.

Do we really need mass immigration, rather
than immigration, to solve our economic problems? More pertinently, do we
really require loads of immigrants who will go on benefits - never mind
immigrants who hate our country? So many mass-immigration fundamentalists,
including people in the Labour and Conservative parties, don’t make any of
these distinctions.

(Incidentally, Ed Miliband referred to his
immigrant father, Ralph Miliband the well-known post-war Marxist theorist. He
failed to also tell us that Ralph Miliband hated British society and thought it
was racist, war-like and imperialist. In fact, as a Marxist revolutionary, Ed’s
dad wanted to destroy the very country that saved his life – just like many
Muslims do today!)

The Labour Party, on the whole, isn't a Marxist or a communist party. However, there are very many cross-currents and interactions between the Labour Party and the Trotskyist/communist Left, mainly on the periphery but also deeper within.

As for the Fabian Society, it isn't a “revolutionary" (as in violent revolution) organisation but it is still, nonetheless, uniquely dangerous and elitist. Its approach to "radically changing society" is very similar to that taken by the followers of the Italian communist, Antonio Gramsci.